1. See the Bibliography concerning Reservations to Treaties, presented by the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (ILC), Alain, Pellet, in his Second Report on Reservations to Treaties (1996) UN Doc.A/CN.4/478.Google Scholar No general studies on Council of Europe practice are to be found apart from those concerning the reservations to the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, most studies concerning reservations have used the UN publication Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General as their core source of State practice. A writer who has analysed the practice within the framework of the Council of Europe is Pierre-Henri Imbert—see his doctoral thesis Les resérves aux traités mullilateraux (1979)—and a number of articles which will be mentioned infra. His contribution is considerable in particular as he has an in-depth insight into the work of the Council after many years in the service of that organisation. However, although this is an impressive and most valuable work, it does not give an overview of the law and practice of the Council of Europe in respect of reservations.

2. The website address is: www.coe.fr/tablconv. In this article use has been made of the website for the conventions which are available there (the site address and the date of last up-date will be indicated). The list available on the Internet is still, however, far from complete so material was requested and received from the Treaty Office of the Council of Europe. In such cases reference to the texts of reservations and declarations will be made in the following format: Council of Europe, E.T.S. No., “Reservations and Declarations”, Date of edition.

3. As a consequence, the second edition of European Conventions and Agreements (Vol.I, covering 1949–1961Google Scholar, reappeared in 1993) does not include information on signatures and ratifications nor on reservations and declarations (the first edition of the first five volumes, i.e. until 1989, contained such information including the full text of reservations and declaration).

4. European Treaty Series (E.T.S.). The last treaty taken into consideration in this examination is the Protocol of Amendment to the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, E.T.S. 170, adopted June 22, 1998.

5. Council of Europe, European Conventions and Agreements (1993), Vol.I: 1949–1961, preface.Google Scholar

6. E.T.S. 156 (1995).Google Scholar

7. Conclusions of the 113th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, 10–18 Sept. 1962 and Doc. CM (62)148.

8. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT, 1969). 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. Essentially the same definition is found in the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1978) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations (1986). The ILC Special Rapporteur, Alain Pellet, has in his latest report combined all the earlier definitions in a composite text (Third Report on Reservations to Treaties (1998) UN Doc.A/CN.4/491/Add.1, para.82). It may be noted that the Council of Europe signed the 1986 Convention on 11 May 1987. The Convention has, however, not yet entered into force.

9. Third Report idem, Add.3, para.167. See also other examples given by Horn, F., Reservations and Interpretative Declarations to Multilateral Treaties (1988) pp.98–100.Google Scholar

10. Art.1(a) and (b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, E.T.S. 1 (1949).Google Scholar

11. Imbert talks of “la logique de l'organisation, qui aboutit à la distinction entre Etats membres et Etats non membres” P.-H. Imbert, “Organisation de l'Europe—La Convention relative à la Conservation de la vie sauvage et du milieu naturel de l'Europe. Exception ou étape?” (1979) Annuaire français du dr. int. 726, 727.Google Scholar

12. This is provided for in the model final clauses adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 1962 (Doc.CM(62)148) and is used in a great number of conventions and agreements. The model article provides for invitation by the Committee of Ministers after the entry into force of the agreement or convention. Apart from the EC, which can be invited to accede (as in the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production, E.T.S. 147 of 1992, and the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Right, E.T.S. 60 of 1996) such invitation may cover international intergovernmental organisations in general. This is the case in the Convention on Insider Trading, E.T.S. 130 (1989)Google Scholar and its Protocol E.T.S. 133 (1989).Google Scholar

13. E.T.S. 50 (1964)Google Scholar and E.T.S. 134 (1989). Note that this treaty is simply entitled “Convention” and not “European Convention”, which is the usual format. The protocol is open only to those States which have signed or acceded to the original Convention of 1964.Google Scholar

14. E.T.S. 64 (1968).Google Scholar

15. E.T.S. 87 (1976)Google Scholar

16. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.11, at p.729.Google Scholar

17. See E.T.S. 102 (1979)Google Scholar European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter, E.T.S. 104 (1979)Google Scholar Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats; E.T.S. 123 (1986)Google Scholar European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes; E.T.S. 132 (1989)Google Scholar European Convention on Transfrontier Television; E.T.S. 145 (1992)Google Scholar Protocol of Amendment to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes; E.T.S. 153 (1994)Google Scholar European Convention relating to questions on Copyright Law and Neighbouring Rights in the Framework of Transfrontier Broadcasting by Satellite; E.T.S. 164 (1997) Convention on Human Rights and Biomedecine.Google Scholar

18. This is the case with E.T.S. 145 (1992)Google Scholar, idem, E.T.S. 170 (1998) Protocol of Amendment to the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes.Google Scholar

19. E.T.S. 47 (1963).Google Scholar

20. E.T.S. 127 (1988).Google Scholar

21. E.T.S. 104 (1979).Google Scholar

22. E.T.S. 160 (1996).Google Scholar Among those who participated in its elaboration and who may sign one notes the Holy See.

23. E.T.S. 164 (1997).Google Scholar Apart from EC the Convention on Biomedicine is open for signature to Australia, Canada, the Holy See, Japan and the US. Other non-member States may accede to the Convention.

24. I refer here to States but this may well cover also intergovernmental organisations in the relevant treaties.

25. For instance the Standing Committee of the Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (E.T.S. 104, Arts.9 and 14) has the general task of promoting and supervising the Convention, including monitoring exceptions made by the contracting parties (see infra Part VII). The Standing Committee of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (E.T.S. 132, art.21) has competence, inter alia, in questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention.

26. Arts.15–20.

27. We will discuss these methods in more detail infra (Part VII).

28. Talking of choices and derogations he concludes: “Pour qu'une clause de cette nature puisse trouver une interprétation et une application aussi objective que possible, il faut qu'elle se trouve placée dans un contexte de solidarité qui, à présent et dans pareille matière, ne peut être trouvé que dans un ensemble régional homogène. Aussi peut-on s'attendre que le droit à une dérogation de cette nature ne puisse se développer que dans une enceinte régionale”: Golsong, H., “Le développement du droit international régional”, in Société française pour le droit international, Régionalisme et univrrsalisme dans le droit international contemporain (1977), pp.221–242, at p.230.Google Scholar

29. E.T.S. 5 (1950).Google Scholar E.T.S. 1 to 4 are: the Statute of the Council of Europe (1, 1949), the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe and its Supplement (2, 1949 and 4, 1950) and the Special Agreement relating to the Seat of the Council of Europe (3,1949). The constitutive texts of the Council of Europe do not contain any provisions relating to reservations and have not encountered problems of this kind. On reservations to constitutive acts of international organisations see Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.40–44Google Scholar and Rosenne, S., Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1986 (1989), pp.431–434.Google Scholar

30. E.Ct.H.R. Ser.A. No.312, judgment of 26 Apr. 1995. For a discussion of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights regarding reservations see Dhommeaux, J., “La coordination des réserves et des déclarations à la Convention euro-péenne des droits de l'homme et au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques”, in Flauss, J. F. and de Salvia, M. (Eds), La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme: Développemenu récents et nouveaux défis (1997) (idem, p.28) pp.13–37.Google Scholar Dhommeaux asks whether, in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court, it should not be possible for States to update their texts at any time (presumably he refers to texts of reservations): “On peut se demander si, à la lumière des nouvelles exigences de la jurisprudence, il ne serait possible, pour les Etats, de préciser à tout moment, leurs textes.”

31. See e.g. the reservations and declarations of Estonia (1996), Finland (1990, with partial withdrawals in 1996 and 1998), Liechtenstein (1982 with update in 1991), Moldova (1997), Ukraine (1997) and the long declaration of Switzerland in 1988 as a consequence of the Belilos case revealing the irritation of the Swiss government. The Swiss declaration gives an account of legislation in all of Switzerland's cantons. Council of Europe “Chart of Signatures and Ratifications” http://www.coe.fr/tablconv/5t.htm, update: 19 Aug. 1998.

32. E.T.S. 13 (1953).Google Scholar

33. E.T.S. 19 (1955).Google Scholar

34. E.T.S. 23 and 24 (1957).Google Scholar

35. Art.26 (1).

36. On other methods of choice see infra Part VII.

37. E.T.S. 29 (1959), Art.13.Google Scholar

38. (1962) Y.B.I.L.C. Vol.I, 637th Session, and in Vol.IIGoogle Scholar the first report of Sir H. Waldock: A/CN.4/SR.144 and Add.1. However, the ILC had started its work on the law of treaties much earlier. The first report by Brierly, the first Special Rapporteur on the matter, was presented in 1950, UN Doc.A/CN.4/23 (1950) II Y.B.I.L.C. 222.Google Scholar

39. Conclusions of the 113th meeting, supra n.7. The memorandum of the Secretariat is entitled “Modeles de clause finales”, CM(62)148, 13 July 1962.Google Scholar

40. CM(62)148, pp.6 and 10.Google Scholar

41. Idem, p.6, n.3.

42. Idem, p.2.

43. Idem, p.3.

44. The term “negotiated reservations” (“réserves négociées”) is used by the Secretariat in its wider sense. “Negotiated reservations” in its strict (and proper) meaning concerns cases of reservations when not only the content but even the States entitled to formulate them are indicated in the treaty. These will be further discussed infra Part V(E). See also Imbert, op. cit. supra at pp.196–199.Google Scholar

45. Ibid.

46. As will be obvious the total number of treaties under all categories exceeds 133. This is for two reasons: the European Convention on Consular Functions (E.T.S. 61, 1967)Google Scholar is here counted as three treaties since it has two protocols with separate reservations clauses (all under E.T.S. 61; see also Imbert, idem; p.185, n.85) and, more importantly, many treaties fall into two categories, e.g. most often because they combine an authorisation of specific reservations with other options (such as various choices and the possibility, of derogating). Even though other models of presenting them might had been used—see e.g. the somewhat different analysis contained in the report of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Rapport sur les réserves formulées par da Etats membres aux conventions du Conseil de l'Europe, Doc.6856, 3 June 1993, Rapporteur: M. Gundersen—it is the purpose of this overview to show the main proportions and trends in the practice of the Council of Europe. In contrast to earlier examinations of the issue, this article places greater emphasis on other varieties of options for limiting treaty undertakings.

47. E.T.S. 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 54, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89, 95, 96, 103, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, 129, 131, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143, 146, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158, 161, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170. It may be noted that even though the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (E.T.S. 157, 1995)Google Scholar does not include a reservations clause, the explanatory report States that “reservations are allowed in as far as they are permitted by international law” (para.98). We will return to this Convention when discussing the options method for the limitation of treaty obligations.

48. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at p.185.Google Scholar

49. These are E.T.S. 44, 45, 46, 49, 54, 55, 81, 89, 95, 96, 103, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 117, 118, 131, 133, 134, 137, 140, 142, 146, 151, 152, 155, 158, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170. This is amounts to 34 protocols with no reservation clauses (approx. 26%; of the total number of treaties examined).

50. Reservations made at the time of ratification in Oct. 1996. E.T.S. 9, “Reservations and Declarations” www.coe.fr/tablconv, update: 2 Apr. 1998.Google Scholar

51. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at p.213.Google Scholar Imbert also gives some examples of conflicts between a protocol and its convention.

52. See also the Second Protocol amending the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality (E.T.S. 149).

53. Art.19(c) of the VCLT prohibits the formulation of reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The I.C.J. had the opportunity to discuss the issue of reservations contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty in its famous opinion in the Genocide case, I.C.J. Rep.1951, p.15.Google Scholar Even though the legal effect of impermissible reservations is still much debated and will be a part of the current examination of reservation issues by the ICL, there seems to be general agreement that there are reservations contrary to the object and purpose and such reservations should not be formulated. See Pellet, op. cit. supra n.1 (A/CN.4/477), esp. at paras.42–45 and the discussion of it by the ILC in Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-Ninth Session, 12 May–18 July 1997, A/52/10, paras.100–111.Google Scholar The obligation to respect the object and purpose of the treaty is not only linked to the formulation of reservations; Art.18 of the VCLT sets at the obligation of States not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force, i.e. usually between signature and entry into force.

54. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.14–15Google Scholar; Pellet, op. cit. supra n.8, at Add.3 paras.151–162—see esp. guideline 1.1.4,.which states “une réserve peut porter sur une ou plusieurs dispositions d'un traité ou, d'une façon plus gétnérale, sur la manière dont l'État entend mettre en oeuvre l'ensemble du traité”.

55. The Secretary General receives and registers all such statements, even in cases where they are not particularly brief. See e.g. the extensive clarifications of the government of Switzerland in the aftermath of the Belilos case (www.coe.fr/tablconv, update: 19 Aug. 1998) and the Romanian declaration concerning the domestic law relevant to the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of Wedlock, E.T.S. 85 (1975).Google Scholar The Romanian declaration was communicated through a Note Verbale in Sept. 1993 and contains also a useful comparative table of provisions in Romanian legislation and the Convention. Council of Europe, E.T.S. 85, “Reservations and Declarations”, Date of edition: 2 11 1998.Google Scholar Reservation clauses similar to the one in the ECHR are found e.g. in: Art.35 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, E.T.S. 23 (1957)Google Scholar; Art.7 of the European Convention on Establishment of Companies, E.T.S. 57 (1966)Google Scholar; Art.25 of the European Convention on the Adoption of Children, E.T.S. 58 (1967)Google Scholar; Art.14 of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Children born out of Wedlock, E.T.S. 85 (1975)Google Scholar; Art.22 of the Convention on European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, E.T.S. 104 (1979)Google Scholar; Art.35 of the Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, E.T.S. 150 (1993).Google Scholar

56. E.T.S. 53, 61(1) and 61(2), which are protocols to the European Convention on Consular Functions but have their own reservation clauses (while the Convention authorises specific reservations), 72, 74, 76, 77, 86, 94, 108, 114, 124, 126, 139, 145, 149, 153, 159, 160. One could possibly add E.T.S. 130 (Convention on Insider Trading) to this list. It provides in Art.17: “Without prejudice to the application of Article 6, no reservation may be made to the Convention.” However, since Art.6 authorises in fact three specific reservations (called “derogations”) which have to be reported to the Council of Europe (even though not at the time of ratification, but at the time of designation of the responsible national authority), it was found appropriate not to include this Convention in the current category. Such examples may serve to illustrate the difficulty of borderline cases. A similar problem occurs with regard to E.T.S. 86 (Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition), which on the one hand prohibits reservations (Art.6.3) and on the other gives contracting parties the opportunity to declare whether they “accept one or the other of Chapters I or II” (Art.6.1). Issues of option methods will be further discussed infra Part VII.

57. These are notably E.T.S. 86, 94, 108, 124, 139.

58. E.T.S. 94 (1977).Google Scholar

59. E.T.S. 116 (1983).Google Scholar

60. Following the guidelines in the above-mentioned paras.(2) and (3) of the 1962 model clause on reservations.

61. See e.g. the reservation provision in the recent European Convention on Nationality (E.T.S. 166, 1997)Google Scholar, which permits reservations only on some of its chapters but only “so long as they are compatible with the object and purpose of this Convention” (Art.29.1).

62. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1 at pp.167–172Google Scholar, speaks of “l'autorisation de réserves determinées” under which he distinguishes four main categories: (1) clauses specifying the object of the authorised reservations; (2) clauses specifying in the provisions which can be the object of reservations; (3) clauses specifying the actual content of the authorised reservations; (4) finally, he discusses other methods of choices limiting the undertakings of the contracting parties. In the first category he gives as examples some early treaties of the Council of Europe (E.T.S. 12, 13 and 14 concluded in 1953). It may be noted that E.T.S. 13 also includes appendices denning the scope of the reservations permitted (Arts.7–9), hence it may be said that in some cases categories 1 and 3 are very similar to each other. Imbert does not seem to lay any importance on the number of reservations authorised, but we find this aspect of value in the effort of the contracting parties to limit the extent of reservations. In the present article Imbert's fourth category (methods of choice) will be treated separately since it is not evident that they fall under the term “reservations”. Imbert, idem, p.169, explains his presentation with the words: “De ces différentes clauses il convient de rapprocher celles qui, sans autoriser de réserves au sens strict du terme (bien que parfois la distinction soit délicate à faire) permettent aussi aux Etats de déterminer eux-mêmes l'étendue de leurs obligations conventionelles.”

63. E.T.S. 43, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 68, 70, 73, 75, 83, 85, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 130, 132, 135, 136, 141, 144, 147, 148, 150, 156, 164, 165, 166.

64. It may well be only one authorised reservation as in the European Convention on the International Effects of Deprivation of the Right to Drive a Motor Vehicle (E.T.S. 88, 1976)Google Scholar, where Art.8 says that a State may reserve the right that any relevant documents be accompanied by a translation.

65. This seems to be the case even before 1962. See Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at p.169.Google Scholar

66. In this last category fall the following treaties: E.T.S. 58, 85, 93, 123, 156, 164 and 166. The reservation clauses in this category take three forms: (1) either they designate the provisions to which reservations can be formulated, or (2) they prohibit reservations to certain provisions or parts of the treaty, leaving open the right to formulate reservations to the remaining provisions. These designations are usually accompanied by a maximum number of reservations permitted. (3) Finally, the form used in the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (E.T.S. 164, 1997)Google Scholar, which permits only one reservation to any provision of the Convention (Art.36.1). This reservation has, however, to be due to a conflict with national law and a brief statement on this legislation is required according to the second para.of the provision (Art.36.2).

67. Horn, F., op. cit. supra n.9, at pp.132–134Google Scholar

68. Idem, p.132.

69. E.T.S. 132 (1989).Google Scholar

70. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.151–152.Google ScholarHorn's view, op. cit. supra n.9, at p.132Google Scholar, is unclean “It is less clear if ‘expressly authorized reservations’ become operative and opposable on the date of formulation or entry into force of the treaty irrespective of any subsequent acceptance and in spite of any objection.” This seems to imply that authorised reservations may be opposable. At p.133, however, and while discussing optional commitments, he writes: “Normally the distinction between treaties presenting optional obligations and treaties authorizing specific reservations will not be felt. In neither case will an objection be permitted under the treaty and the reciprocity of obligations will operate in the same way in both cases.” This seems to imply that objections to authorised reservations are not permitted. For more discussion on option systems see infra Part VII.

71. E.T.S. 107 (1980).Google Scholar

72. The fact that most such specific reservation clauses repeat that “no other reservations may be made” clarifies that the Council of Europe sees such clauses in a restrictive way. This is not always the case in other organisations. See Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.209–210.Google Scholar

73. E.T.S. 119 (1985).Google Scholar

74. This is sometimes specifically emphasised in the treaty itself. See e.g. Art.10 in E.T.S. 13.

75. In addition, it has happened that annexes are not published in the collection European Conventions and Agreements, which makes knowledge about the treaty more difficult to come by since one has to find the E.T.S. See e.g. E.T.S. 13.

76. See supra n.44.

77. Golsong, , op. cit. supra, n.28, at p.228. Golsong was at the time Director of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe.Google Scholar

78. Imbert op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.196–197.Google Scholar

79. E.T.S. 79 (1973).Google Scholar

80. E.T.S. 132 (1989).Google Scholar

81. In this Convention there is in Art.32(1)(a) also a clause providing for a specifically authorised reservation regarding advertisements for alcoholic beverages (this not being a “negotiated reservation” strictu senso).

82. E.T.S. 47, 58, 79 and 85. All four of them date prior to 1975.

83. E.T.S. 79, Art.17 and annex.

84. E.T.S. 47 (1963).Google Scholar

85. Idem, Art.12.

86. E.T.S. 58 (1967)Google Scholar and E.T.S. 85 (1975).Google Scholar

87. Council of Europe, E.T.S. 85, “Reservations and Declarations”, date of edition: 2 Nov. 1998.

88. E.T.S. 163 (1996).Google Scholar

89. E.T.S. 57 (1966).Google Scholar

90. E.T.S. 108 (1981).Google Scholar

91. Pellet, op. cit. supra n.8, at para.135, is of the view that “l'idée d'inclure des limites ratione temporis à la possibilité de formuler des réserves dans la définition même de celles-ci ne va pas de soi et, à vrai dire, ces limitation constituent d'avantage un élément de leur régime juridique qu'un critère à proprement parler.”

92. E.T.S. 102 (1979).Google Scholar

93. E.T.S. 139 (1990).Google Scholar

94. E.T.S. 104 (1979).Google Scholar

95. The Convention provides also for specific reservations under Art.22.

96. E.T.S. 52 (1964).Google Scholar

97. E.T.S. 71 (1970).Google Scholar A similar clause can be found in E.T.S. 78 (1972).Google Scholar The Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (E.T.S. 127, 1988)Google Scholar lets States define which taxes will be covered by the Convention as well as the term “nationals”.

98. This view is supported by the UN Secretary-General as depositary. See Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, UN Doc.ST/LEG/8, 1994, p.62.Google Scholar

99. See the inconclusive discussions in Y.B.I.L.C. (1965) I regarding what was then Art.15 which later became Art.16 and is now Art.17 in the VCLT (787th and 812th meetings, at pp.80–86, 261–262 and 281–282)Google Scholar and Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Eighteenth session. May—July 1966 (1966) II Y.B.I.L.C. 201–202.Google Scholar Several members of the ILC, including its Special Rapporteur Sir Humphrey Waldock, emphasised the close relationship between ratification of a part of a treaty and reservations. It is also clear that so-called “À la carte systems” where States may chose more or less freely among many provisions were not what the ILC had in mind. See also Rosenne, S., Law of Treaties, Guide to the Legislative History of the Vienna Convention (1970), pp.168–169.Google Scholar

100. E.T.S. 98 (1978).Google Scholar

101. ILC, Report, loc.cit. supra n.99, with commentary on draft Art.14 (which later became final Art.17).

102. Various forms of possible exclusions, derogations and option systems are found in E.T.S. 38, 41, 43, 48, 52, 56, 57, 58, 64, 69, 71, 74, 78, 86, 94, 97, 98, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 119, 122, 124, 127, 128, 130, 136, 139, 141, 144, 148, 154, 157, 163, and 169. This gives a total of 37 treaties, i.e. approx. 28%.

104. E.T.S. 97 (1978).Google Scholar

105. E.T.S. 122 (1985).Google Scholar

106. E.T.S. 139 (1990).Google Scholar As noted above, the Code includes also derogation clauses.

107. E.T.S. 148 (1992).Google Scholar

108. A special form of indication of a minimum level is included in the European Agreement on the Restriction of the Use of certain Detergents in Washing and Cleaning Products (E.T.S. 64, 1968).Google Scholar As noted above the Agreement does not have any reservation clause but Art.1 requires that at least 80%; of detergents are susceptible to biological degradation. This may, however, hardly be seen as a (permissible) reservation, since, in fact, there are no treaty obligations regarding biological degradation for the remaining 20%.

109. E.T.S. 127 (1988).Google Scholar

110. E.T.S. 128 (1988).Google Scholar

111. E.T.S. 136 (1990).Google Scholar

112. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.169–172.Google Scholar

113. See also supra regarding the right of parties to object to expressly authorised reservations.

114. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.169–172Google Scholar and in particular p.171, n.36.Google Scholar

115. See supra nn.99 and 101.

116. E.T.S. 64 (1968).Google Scholar

117. E.T.S. 69 (1969).Google Scholar

118. E.T.S. 78 (1972).Google Scholar

119. E.T.S. 157 (1995).Google Scholar

120. E.T.S. 169 (1998).Google Scholar

121. E.T.S. 52, 56, 57, 58, 98, 104, 105, 119, 127, 130, 136, 141, 144 and 148. E.T.S. 98 and 136 have been discussed supra.

122. See the draft Guide to Practice by Mr Pellet A/CN.4/491/Add.6 (1998).Google Scholar

123. Golsong, loc. cit. supra n.28.

124. E.T.S. 90 (1977).Google Scholar Council of Europe, “Reservations and Declarations” date of edition: 2 Nov. 1998. This declaration comes after declaratory statements on the need to combat terrorism while respecting the fundamental principles of criminal and constitutional law as well as the right to asylum.

125. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.236–237.Google Scholar

126. Horn, op. cit. supra n.9, at pp.100–103.Google Scholar

127. The French declaration is rather a restatement of what is already provided for in the ECHR: “The Government of the Republic further declares that the Convention shall apply to the whole territory of the Republic, having due regard, where overseas territories are concerned, to local requirements, as mentioned in Article 63”: Council of Europe, “Chart of Signatures and Ratifications” www.coe.fr, update: 19 Aug. 1998.

128. Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, ECHR Ser.A, No.310, 23 Mar. 1995.Google Scholar See also the judgment on the merits of 18 Dec. 1996 and the subsequent judgment on Art.50 (regarding compensation) of 28 July 1998.

129. Idem, paras.55–98. For a comment See Cohen-Jonathan, G., “L'affaire Loizidou devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme—Quelques observations” (1998) I Rev. Générale de Dr. Int. Public 123–144.Google Scholar

130. I refer here to the numbering of provisions prior to the entry into force of the 11th Protocol since this was the situation when the Court decided the case.

131. Loizidou, supra n.128, at para.88.

132. Council of Europe, “Chart of Signatures and Ratifications”, www.coe.fr, update: 19 Aug. 1998.

133. This is also the view of Pellet, op. cit. supra n.8. at Add.3, para.185.

134. The model clause was: “Toute Partie Contractante peut, au moment de la signature, ou au moment du dépôt de son instrument de ratification, d'acceptation ou d'adhésion, désigner le ou les territoires auxquels s'appliquera le présent Accord.” Modèles de clauses finales, CM(62)148, p.6.Google Scholar

135. E.T.S.102 (1979), Council of Europe, “Chart of Signatures and Ratifications” www.coe.fr, update: 28 Oct. 1998.Google Scholar

136. For a discussion of the possibility of objecting to authorised reservations see text accompanying supra nn.69–70.

137. Council of Europe, Reply to the Questionnaire of the International Law Commission, letter dated 7 03 1997, pp.23–24.Google Scholar

138. E.T.S. 105 (1980)Google Scholar

139. Recently more and more interest is shown in autonomy as a method to avoid conflicts. See several relevant contributions in Suksi, M. (Ed.), Autonomy: Applications and Implications (1998). There is here a possible risk that territorial declarations would be used in order to exclude the legal effect of treaties in more and more autonomous regions even within the Council of Europe. This would of course erode the whole effect of the treaties.Google Scholar

140. Imbert, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.206 and 214.Google Scholar

141. Idem, p.206 and n.22 where there are also examples to the contrary.

142. Council of Europe, op. cit. supra n.137, at p.5.Google Scholar

143. Such activity would be useful e.g. regarding the “declaration” of Sweden to the European Agreement on the Exchange of Therapeutic Substances of Human Origin (E.T.S. 26, 1958)Google Scholar by which the Agreement is to be applied only to human blood; another example is the earlier mentioned recent territorial “declaration” to the European Convention of Human Rights by the Republic of Moldova concerning the Trans-Dniester territory.